Abstract
This collaborative European Academy of Plastic Surgery (EAFPS) study aimed to provide
an overview of rhinoplasty practices, informing clinician and patient decision making.
It is a multicenter cross-sectional study, reported as per Strengthening the Reporting
of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. All EAFPS members were contacted
via email, inviting them to participate. Members expressing an interest to participate
were asked to anonymously complete a questionnaire, related to rhinoplasties that
they performed as first/supervising surgeon over a period from January 1, 2019 to
January 1, 2022. A descriptive analysis was performed. One hundred and fifteen surgeons
submitted data on 41,259 rhinoplasties from 33 countries. Eighty percent of rhinoplasties
were primary, and 20% were secondary. Thirty five percent of primary rhinoplasties
were closed and 65% were open. Thirty one percent of primary rhinoplasties were for
cosmetic indications, 11% functional and 58% were for both. Of the 8147 secondary
rhinoplasties, 44% were closed and 56% were open. Thirty percent were for cosmetic
indications, 11% functional, and 59% for both cosmetic and functional. Ninety-one
percent of rhinoplasties were performed by ENT surgeons, 3% by plastic surgeons, 5%
by maxillofacial surgeons, and 1% were dual (maxillofacial and ENT) trained. One-thousand
seven-hundred thirty primary rhinoplasties underwent revision surgery (5%) and 102
secondary rhinoplasties underwent revision surgery (1%). The most commonly reported
indications for revision surgery were dorsal asymmetry, nasal blockage, and dissatisfaction
with nasal tip. Three percent of rhinoplasties underwent preoperative psychological
assessment. To the authors knowledge, this is the largest published rhinoplasty dataset.
This study provides an overview of rhinoplasty practices that can be used for benchmarking
and to guide clinician and patient decision making. Psychological assessment of prerhinoplasty
appears insufficient with higher levels recommended to minimize unsuccessful outcomes.
This study showcases the power of collaborative research and may serve as a catalyst
for future collaborative facial plastic surgery research.
Keywords
rhinoplasty - cross-sectional - collaborative
